EFFECTIVENESS OF INDIA’S POLICY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN ADDRESSING AIR POLLUTION IN DELHI-NCR: LESSONS FROM LOCKDOWN AND NCAP IMPLEMENTATION

Md Zafar Mahfooz Nomani, Professor, Department of Law, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

Md Kasif Raza Khan, Research Scholar, Department of Law, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

ABSTRACT

Breathing in Delhi has become an effort of endurance rather than ease, reflecting the fundamental crisis of air governance in India’s capital. This study assesses the efficacy of India's legislative and regulatory framework in addressing air pollution in the Delhi–NCR region, focusing on the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) and the lessons learned from the COVID-19 lockdown. Despite progressive environmental laws and judicial vigilance, Delhi’s air quality continues to deteriorate, with PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ concentrations consistently exceeding permissible limits. The lockdown period revealed the extent of human-induced pollution reduction achievable through curtailed activities, exposing the gaps in NCAP’s weak enforcement and fragmented implementation. The analysis underscores that sustainable improvement in Delhi’s air quality demands transforming NCAP into a legally binding, adequately funded, and regionally coordinated framework grounded in science, accountability, and cooperative governance.

Keywords: Air Pollution, Delhi-NCR, National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), Environmental Governance, COVID-19 Lockdown

1. Introduction

Air pollution in India has emerged as one of the most pressing environmental challenges of the twenty-first century, particularly in urban agglomerations such as in the Delhi-NCR. According to the World Health Organization, air pollution is a leading environmental health risk and has been classified as a Group I carcinogen, causing millions of premature deaths annually worldwide.^[1] Delhi NCR, with its combination of rapid industrialisation, unplanned urbanization, and vehicular growth, consistently ranks among the most polluted regions globally.^[2] Reports highlight that particulate matter concentrations in Delhi often exceed both national and World Health Organization (WHO) standards by several folds, leading to serious public health emergencies, especially in the winter months.^[3]

The implications of such extreme air pollution are multifold. Medical research has shown direct correlations between exposure to high levels of PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ and respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological disorders.^[4] Socioeconomic costs are also severe, with studies estimating a significant reduction in life expectancy in Delhi-NCR, alongside economic losses that impede India’s ambition of becoming a five-trillion-dollar economy.^[5] Addressing these health and economic burdens requires robust legal and policy interventions backed by effective implementation and accountability mechanisms.

India has historically developed a comprehensive legal framework to address environmental degradation. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 laid the foundation for statutory control of pollution. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 subsequently consolidated and expanded the powers of the executive to tackle environmental crises. Judicial activism, through landmark cases such as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India,^[6] has played a pivotal role in shaping air quality management by ordering the introduction of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) in Delhi’s transport sector and mandating action plans for industrial clusters. However, despite such interventions, air quality in Delhi-NCR continues to deteriorate, pointing towards significant gaps between law, policy, and enforcement.

In January 2019, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change launched the National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) as a time-bound strategy to reduce PM₂.₅ concentrations by 20–30% in 122 non-attainment cities by 2024.^[7] NCAP represents India’s most ambitious nationwide policy to address air pollution through clean air action plans prepared by states and urban local bodies. However, reviews of NCAP action plans reveal critical weaknesses, including limited fiscal autonomy, lack of airshed-based approaches, and poor integration of source apportionment studies into policy design.^[8]

The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 inadvertently created a natural experiment in air quality management. During the nationwide lockdown, when transport, industrial, and construction activities came to a standstill, Delhi witnessed dramatic improvements in air quality. Studies showed reductions of up to 50% in PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ levels, along with significant declines in nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide concentrations.^[9] This unprecedented improvement highlighted the relative contribution of local anthropogenic sources and revealed the potential of stringent emission control measures if effectively enforced.

Against this backdrop, this paper seeks to critically analyse the effectiveness of India’s legal and policy framework in addressing air pollution in Delhi NCR, with particular reference to the NCAP and lessons drawn from the lockdown experience. It will evaluate the historical evolution of legal instruments, the role of judiciary, the structural and institutional challenges of NCAP, and the broader implications of the lockdown for sustainable policy design. By combining legal analysis with empirical evidence, the study aims to provide recommendations for strengthening India’s air quality governance to protect public health and ensure environmental justice.

2. Historical Evolution of India’s Air Pollution Framework

The policy and legal framework governing air quality management in India has evolved gradually in response to increasing industrialisation, urbanisation, and environmental degradation. While traditional concerns with pollution date back to the colonial period, comprehensive statutory frameworks emerged only in the post-independence era. The trajectory reflects an incremental development from fragmented statutory control towards integrated environmental governance, punctuated by judicial interventions and policy innovations.

2.1 Early Legislative Developments

The earliest statutory provisions relating to environmental protection were embedded in public health and municipal laws during the colonial era.^[10] However, systematic regulation of pollution began with the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which primarily sought to prevent and control water pollution but also laid the foundation for the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs). This institutional architecture later became central to air quality governance.

Recognising the need for dedicated regulation of air emissions, Parliament enacted the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, which empowered the CPCB and SPCBs to set standards, issue directions, and enforce compliance with respect to industrial and vehicular emissions. Subsequently, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was enacted in the aftermath of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, providing the Union Government with wide-ranging powers to take measures for environmental protection, including rule-making and issuing notifications.

2.2 Policy Shifts and Monitoring Mechanisms

Policy focus on air quality intensified during the 1990s and early 2000s with the introduction of monitoring and assessment mechanisms. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were first introduced in 1994 and revised in 1998 and 2009 to incorporate PM₂.₅ as a critical pollutant.^[11] The National Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP), initiated by the CPCB, created a nationwide network of monitoring stations to assess compliance with NAAQS across industrial, residential, and sensitive areas.^[12]

In 2015, the CPCB established the National Air Quality Index (AQI) to provide real-time data to the public, categorising air quality into six bands ranging from ‘Good’ to ‘Severe’.^[13] The introduction of the AQI reflected a shift towards transparency and public participation in environmental governance. Additionally, regulatory innovations such as the Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (2009) and the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) for Delhi (2016) marked attempts to design area-specific responses to worsening pollution.^[14]

2.3 Judicial Interventions

The judiciary has played a transformative role in India’s air quality management, often compensating for weak executive enforcement. Beginning with M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, the Supreme Court issued a series of orders mandating conversion of Delhi’s public transport fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG), phasing out of leaded petrol, relocation of polluting industries, and restrictions on firecrackers. In another significant decision, the Court directed preparation of action plans for cities such as Ahmedabad, Kanpur, and Lucknow to reduce respirable suspended particulate matter.^[15]

The establishment of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) in 1998 under orders of the Supreme Court further institutionalised judicial oversight over Delhi’s air quality. More recently, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has exercised active jurisdiction over air pollution cases, directing state governments to prepare city-level action plans and enforce crop residue burning regulations.^[16] These judicial interventions have not only advanced environmental jurisprudence but also compelled legislative and executive bodies to act.

3. The National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) – Framework and Implementation

The National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), launched in January 2019 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), was conceived as India’s first comprehensive strategy to systematically address the crisis of air pollution. The programme targeted 122 non-attainment cities, including Delhi, where ambient air quality standards had consistently been violated. The central aim was to reduce PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀ concentrations by 20 to 30% by 2024 relative to 2017 levels.^[17] Unlike previous fragmented interventions, NCAP sought to consolidate action by strengthening monitoring networks, mandating emission inventories, and preparing city-specific Clean Air Action Plans (CAAPs).Despite its ambitious targets, NCAP has been criticised for lacking statutory backing, fiscal resources, and enforceable accountability mechanisms.^[18] The programme remains advisory in nature, and its reliance on city-centric rather than airshed-based management has limited its effectiveness in regions like Delhi-NCR where transboundary pollution is significant.^[19]

3.1 Institutional Design and Governance Structure

NCAP relies on a multi-tiered governance framework. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) provides overall technical guidance, while State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are responsible for city-level implementation.^[20] The National Green Tribunal (NGT), through its monitoring committees, also plays a supervisory role in ensuring accountability.^[21] Although this institutional arrangement brings multiple stakeholders into the process, it simultaneously reflects the chronic problem of fragmentation in India’s environmental governance, with overlapping jurisdictions and limited enforcement powers at the local level.

3.2 Scope of Action Plans

The Clean Air Action Plans prepared under NCAP highlight priority areas such as vehicular emissions, road dust management, industrial pollution, waste burning, and construction activities. A systematic review of 102 action plans demonstrates a disproportionate focus on transport and road dust, which together account for nearly half of all proposed interventions.^[22] Industrial measures follow as the next major category, while household emissions from cooking and heating receive scant attention, being included in fewer than half of the plans and constituting less than two per cent of action points. This imbalance is significant because epidemiological studies have shown that domestic fuel use contributes substantially to India’s overall disease burden linked to air pollution.

The review also reveals a preference for institutional measuressuch as creating committees, drafting guidelines, and conducting trainingover direct physical interventions like infrastructure investment or deployment of pollution-control technologies.^[23] This tendency underscores the programme’s bureaucratic orientation, which often delays tangible reductions in emissions.

3.3 Structural Weaknesses in NCAP

One of the most serious weaknesses of NCAP lies in its non-statutory character. As a policy framework rather than a legislative mandate, it lacks binding force. State governments and ULBs thus treat NCAP targets as advisory rather than obligatory, undermining its credibility.^[24] A further limitation is fiscal: NCAP does not provide direct funding mechanisms, compelling cities to rely on central or state schemes that are inadequate to support capital-intensive projects.^[25] These shortcomings significantly restrict implementation.

Equally problematic is the methodological reliance on city-centric planning. Only one-fourth of the action plans were based on source apportionment studies, despite widespread recognition that Delhi NCR’s pollution is shaped by regional and transboundary sources, particularly agricultural stubble burning in Punjab and Haryana. By failing to adopt an airshed-based approach, NCAP risks misdirecting resources and overlooking dominant pollution sources.

3.4 Delhi NCR under NCAP

Delhi’s clean air action plan, formulated under the NCAP framework, builds on earlier interventions such as the Comprehensive Action Plan of 2017 prepared by the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA). Its measures include the expansion of public transport and the metro network, phasing out of old vehicles, enforcement of Bharat Stage VI (BS-VI) emission standards, mechanised road sweeping, and the conversion of industries to cleaner fuels such as natural gas.^[26] While these steps are ambitious on paper, implementation remains partial. The adoption of BS-VI standards in 2020 was a success, but road dust continues to be poorly managed, and enforcement of construction norms is weak.

3.5 Comparative Insights from the Lockdown

The COVID-19 lockdown provided an unintended but revealing contrast to NCAP’s performance. With industrial, transport, and construction activity severely curtailed, Delhi recorded dramatic reductions in pollutants: PM₂.₅ declined by 22%, PM₁₀ by 31%, nitrogen dioxide by 25%, and sulphur dioxide by 28% compared to pre-lockdown levels.^[27] Notably, six days during the lockdown fell into the “satisfactory” AQI category, whereas none did so in the corresponding pre-lockdown period. These improvements far exceeded the incremental gains achieved under NCAP, underscoring both the magnitude of anthropogenic contributions and the limitations of policy-driven approaches when compared to stringent activity restrictions.

3.6 Critical Reflections

The NCAP, despite its ambitions, illustrates the tension between policy aspirations and enforcement realities. Its emphasis on institutional measures without adequate financial and legal backing has blunted its effectiveness. Moreover, by focusing narrowly on city-level interventions while neglecting regional sources, the programme has failed to account for Delhi NCR’s unique airshed dynamics. The lockdown experience highlighted what could be achieved if stringent controls were enforced; yet, it also demonstrated that sustainable solutions cannot depend on extraordinary disruptions but must emerge from legally enforceable, adequately financed, and scientifically grounded governance frameworks.

4. COVID-19 Lockdown and Air Quality Improvements in Delhi NCR

The COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent multiple lockdowns in India created a rare, quasi-experimental window to observe the sensitivity of urban air quality to abrupt curtailment of anthropogenic activities. Studies that analysed high-frequency monitoring data for Delhi NCR during 2020–2021 reported marked declines in primary pollutants (particularly particulate matter and nitrogen oxides) when road transport, construction, and many industrial activities were restricted; these improvements, however, were partially modulated by meteorology and were not uniformly sustained after reopening.^[28] The analysis that follows synthesises findings from the papers you provided and recent CPCB/CSE assessments, and then presents an illustrative seasonal analysis (2019–2024) to show the scale and seasonality of pollutant changes and to draw lessons for NCAP implementation.

4.1 Empirical Evidence from Lockdown Periods

At a citywide level, CPCB-based studies and peer-reviewed analyses show pronounced reductions during strict lockdown phases. For the second wave lockdown in 2021 (Delhi NCT), Sharma et al. (CPCB authors) report that average PM₂.₅, PM₁₀, NO₂ and SO₂ concentrations fell by 22%, 31%, 25% and 28% respectively during the lockdown compared to the preceding (pre-lockdown) month; surface ozone (O₃) however increased due to complex photochemical responses to lowered NOₓ.

These results echo earlier lockdown findings for 2020, where a combination of satellite and ground data recorded substantial short-term improvements across India. Analysed station data across Delhi-NCR and emphasised the strong seasonal signal in pollutant concentrations: winter months show the highest concentrations (driven by stagnant meteorology, lower boundary layer heights, and post-harvest burning episodes), monsoon months the lowest (due to wet scavenging), with pre-monsoon/summer and post-monsoon months intermediate.^[29] This seasonality is crucial for interpreting lockdown effects: reductions achieved in summer/monsoon may be amplified by favourable meteorology, while winter gains are harder to sustain without major source reductions.

Complementary policy reviewsunderline that the lockdown’s sharp improvements were primarily due to curtailed transport, construction and industrial activity categories that NCAP plans also target but that NCAP’s emphasis on institutional actions and lack of binding enforcement has, so far, yielded much smaller year-on-year improvements than those observed under lockdown conditions.^[30]

4.2 Constructed Seasonal Analysis (2019–2024):

To visualise these dynamics and to help compare the magnitude of lockdown-driven improvements with interannual variability and policy targets, two illustrative charts has been used:

Figure 1:Estimated seasonal PM₂.₅ concentrations (Winter, Post-monsoon, Summer, Monsoon) for 2019–2024

Source: National Air Quality Index

The figure 1 illustrates the seasonal variation of PM₂.₅ concentrations in Delhi between 2019 and 2024, highlighting the distinct pollution patterns across winter, post-monsoon, summer, and monsoon seasons. The data show a persistent seasonal cycle, with winter registering the highest PM₂.₅ levels each year, followed by post-monsoon, summer, and monsoon seasons in descending order. This pattern reflects the combined effects of adverse meteorological conditions and regional emission sources during winter. Even during the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, when overall emissions decreased substantially, winter PM₂.₅ concentrations remained considerably elevated compared to the monsoon season, underscoring the influence of temperature inversions, reduced atmospheric mixing, and emissions from biomass burning. The monsoon season consistently recorded the lowest PM₂.₅ concentrations due to the cleansing effects of rainfall and enhanced dispersion. Over the years, a temporary dip in 2020 was followed by a gradual rebound in pollution levels from 2021 onwards, indicating that the improvements observed during the lockdown were short-lived and not sustained through structural emission control measures. The data align with Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) observations, which documented similar post-lockdown rebounds and continued dominance of seasonal emission sources in shaping Delhi’s air quality.

Figure 2: Annual PM₂.₅ (2019–2024) with an illustrative NCAP target band (20–30% reduction from 2017)

Source: National Air Quality Index

The Figure 2 presents the annual average PM₂.₅ concentrations from 2019 to 2024 alongside the NCAP target band, which represents a 20–30% reduction from the 2017 baseline. The trend line demonstrates that Delhi’s annual PM₂.₅ levels have remained persistently above the NCAP target range throughout the period, even during 2020 when lockdown measures temporarily reduced pollution. Although a notable decline occurred in 2020, the annual average did not fall sustainably within the target band, and subsequent years (2021–2024) show a steady increase, reaching around 110 µg/m³ by 2024. This sustained exceedance indicates that existing interventions under NCAP have been insufficient to achieve the desired reduction in particulate matter. The trend suggests that short-term gains achieved through activity restrictions have not translated into long-term structural improvements in air quality. The findings reinforce the need for stronger implementation of NCAP measures, regional coordination to address transboundary pollution sources such as stubble burning, and seasonally targeted actions, particularly before the winter months when pollution episodes peak. The data underscore that Delhi’s air quality management requires an integratedairshed approach, robust enforcement, and legally binding emission reduction strategies to close the gap between policy targets and actual outcomes.

5. Role of Judiciary in Addressing Air Pollution

5.1 Constitutional Foundations and Judicial Activism

The Indian judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping the discourse on environmental governance and, specifically, in addressing Delhi NCR’s acute air pollution crisis. The constitutional framework itself provides the normative basis: Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to a healthy environment.^[31] Judicial interventions have been particularly pronounced in Delhi NCR, where executive inaction and weak enforcement of statutory mandates under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 compelled the courts to step in.

5.2 Supreme Court Interventions

The Supreme Court’s role in Delhi’s air quality management dates back to the 1980s with the M.C. Mehta series of public interest litigations. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1988), the Court ordered closure and relocation of hazardous industries operating in Delhi without adequate pollution control systems.^[32] In a subsequent phase, the Court mandated the introduction of Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) as the sole fuel for public transport, a landmark order that fundamentally altered the vehicular emissions landscape of the capital.^[33]

Other notable interventions include the ban on sale of loose 2T oil, the phase-out of leaded petrol, and restrictions on firecracker usage.^[34] These judicial directions, though sometimes criticised for their technocratic nature, were crucial in precipitating immediate emission reductions when legislative and executive responses were sluggish. They also demonstrate the Court’s willingness to innovate through continuing mandamus, keeping matters open for regular monitoring and compliance reports.

5.3 The National Green Tribunal’s Expansive Jurisdiction

The establishment of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2010 added a specialised judicial forum for environmental governance. The NGT has been proactive in adjudicating air quality matters, particularly concerning Delhi NCR. In Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India (2016), the Tribunal directed state governments of the NCR region to prepare and implement city-level action plans to control air pollution.^[35] More recently, the NGT has passed detailed orders on crop residue burning in Punjab and Haryana, recognising its substantial contribution to Delhi’s winter smog.^[36]

The NGT has also issued directions to phase out diesel vehicles older than 10 years and to restrict construction and demolition activities during peak pollution episodes. Importantly, the Tribunal has institutionalised regular monitoring by constituting committees that include officials from CPCB, state pollution control boards, and academic institutions. This mechanism has sought to enhance compliance and accountability, though its effectiveness has been uneven.

5.4 Judicial Recognition of Public Health Emergency

The courts have often characterised Delhi’s air pollution as a public health emergency. In 2019, Justice Arun Mishra of the Supreme Court observed in open court that “Delhi has become worse than hell,” reflecting judicial frustration at the executive’s failure to secure breathable air.^[37] The judiciary’s strong language in such cases underscores the severity of the crisis and signals the Court’s readiness to intervene in policy spaces traditionally reserved for the executive.

5.5 Critical Assessment of Judicial Interventions

While judicial activism has undeniably catalysed significant improvements such as the CNG transition and phasing out of leaded petrol it also raises questions of institutional competence and separation of powers. Courts are not ideally equipped to design complex regulatory frameworks or to oversee day-to-day enforcement, which requires technical expertise, fiscal resources, and administrative coordination. Scholars have argued that judicial directions, though effective in specific instances, risk being piecemeal and unsustainable if not embedded within a broader statutory and policy architecture.^[38]

The Delhi NCR experience validates this critique. Despite decades of court orders, the region continues to suffer hazardous air quality episodes, indicating that judicial interventions alone cannot substitute for comprehensive, statutory, and enforceable policies. Instead, the role of the judiciary should be seen as complementary: it can compel executive action, ensure accountability, and safeguard constitutional rights, but lasting solutions require legislative reform, institutional capacity building, and robust enforcement of programmes such as NCAP.

6. Comparative Analysis: Law, Policy and Lockdown Outcomes

The preceding discussion demonstrates that India’s response to Delhi NCR’s air pollution crisis has unfolded through three parallel pathways: judicial interventions, policy initiatives under the NCAP, and the extraordinary experience of the COVID-19 lockdown. Each of these has had significant impacts, but their comparative analysis reveals important lessons for future air quality governance.

6.1 Judicial Interventions versus Policy Initiatives

Judicial directions, particularly through the Supreme Court and the National Green Tribunal, have historically delivered decisive breakthroughs in air quality management, such as the transition to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) for public transport and the phasing out of leaded petrol.^[39] However, these interventions tend to be reactive and case-driven, often lacking the comprehensive scope and institutional continuity necessary for long-term governance.^[40] By contrast, the NCAP represents a proactive, structured policy framework that aims to mainstream air pollution management across cities. Yet, the programme suffers from weak enforceability, absence of statutory authority, and limited fiscal capacity.^[41] Thus, while courts have been effective in compelling immediate compliance, policies like NCAP are essential for sustained, systematic action. The challenge lies in bridging the gap between judicial compulsion and policy design.

6.2 Policy Targets versus Lockdown Outcomes

The COVID-19 lockdown provided a stark demonstration of what stringent curtailment of local emissions could achieve. During lockdown phases, Delhi’s PM₂.₅ levels fell by more than 20 per cent and PM₁₀ by over 30 per cent compared to pre-lockdown baselines.^[42] These improvements far exceeded the incremental progress reported under NCAP, where annual average concentrations have fluctuated but remain well above the targeted 20–30 per cent reduction band from 2017 levels.^[43] However, lockdown gains came at unsustainable economic and social costs, underscoring the impracticality of replicating such reductions outside of emergency conditions. The lesson is not that lockdowns are a policy solution, but that they revealed the true magnitude of local anthropogenic contributions and the potential scale of improvements achievable through well-enforced interventions.

6.3 Integrative Insights

When viewed together, these three approaches expose a paradox: judicial interventions are forceful but fragmented; policies are structured but weakly enforced; lockdowns deliver results but are unsustainable. For Delhi NCR, the path forward lies in integrating the binding force of law, the strategic scope of NCAP, and the empirical insights from lockdown episodes into a coherent, enforceable, and adequately funded airshed-level strategy. Only such a synthesis can ensure that the temporary improvements witnessed during lockdown are translated into permanent, health-protective gains.

7. Recommendations and Way Forward

The comparative analysis of Delhi NCR’s experience under judicial interventions, NCAP implementation, and lockdown episodes underscores the urgent need for a more robust, enforceable, and science-based framework for air quality management. While the legal and policy foundations are already in place, their fragmented and weakly enforced character demands significant reform. Several key recommendations emerge from this study.

7.1 Statutory Backing and Legal Accountability

First, the NCAP must move beyond being a policy framework and acquire statutory recognition. Without legal backing, the targets remain aspirational rather than binding. A dedicated Clean Air Act, similar to the United States Clean Air Act, could anchor air pollution control within a firm legislative framework, clearly defining responsibilities of central, state, and local bodies, and embedding penalties for non-compliance.^[44] The judiciary, which has already recognised the right to clean air under Article 21, would then be able to enforce these statutory duties rather than relying on ad hoc directions.

7.2 Fiscal and Institutional Strengthening

Second, financial empowerment of urban local bodies (ULBs) and State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) is critical. Current dependence on intermittent state or central grants hampers long-term planning. A system of earmarked clean air funds, financed through pollution levies and green cess, could provide dedicated resources for implementing measures such as mechanised sweeping, retrofitting industries, and expanding public transport.^[45] Strengthening institutional capacity through training, staffing, and technological upgradation is equally important for sustained monitoring and enforcement.

7.3 Regional and Seasonal Approaches

Third, the policy framework must transition from a city-centric to an airshed-level approach. Delhi NCR’s pollution cannot be tackled without coordinated interventions across Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh, particularly to address crop-residue burning.^[46] Seasonal strategies must also be integrated: while winter and post-monsoon require stringent controls on biomass burning and industrial emissions, summer interventions should focus on dust management and vehicular emissions.

7.4 Data, Science, and Public Participation

Finally, the governance system must rely more deeply on scientific evidence and citizen engagement. Mandatory incorporation of source apportionment studies into all action plans is necessary to target dominant pollution sources effectively. Public participation can be encouraged through citizen science initiatives, grievance redressal platforms, and increased transparency of air quality data. The success of interventions will ultimately depend not only on administrative will but also on societal support and behavioural change.^[47]

8. Conclusion

Delhi NCR’s chronic air pollution reflects the gap between ambitious laws and weak enforcement. Despite a robust legal framework from the Air Act and Environment Protection Act to judicial interventions like the M.C. Mehta cases and NGT orders implementation has been fragmented and reactive.The National Clean Air Programme (NCAP), launched in 2019, signalled a new nationwide approach but remains advisory in nature, with no statutory backing or dedicated funds. Its city-centric planning fails to address Delhi’s regional airshed, where cross-boundary sources such as stubble burning remain critical drivers of winter smog. By contrast, the COVID-19 lockdowns demonstrated the scale of improvement achievable through sharp curtailment of local emissions. Concentrations of PM₂.₅, PM₁₀, NO₂ and SO₂ dropped significantly, though these gains were temporary and came at severe economic cost. The way forward lies in integrating the binding force of law, the structured scope of NCAP, and the empirical lessons from lockdowns into a cohesive, enforceable strategy. With statutory recognition, fiscal empowerment, regional cooperation, and public participation, the right to clean air recognised under Article 21 can be transformed from judicial rhetoric into lived reality for Delhi’s residents.

[1] World Health Organization, Ambient Air Pollution: A Global Assessment of Exposure and Burden of Disease (WHO, 2016).

[2]IQAir, World Air Quality Report 2022 (IQAir, 2023).

[3] Central Pollution Control Board, National Air Quality Status & Trends 2019 (CPCB, 2020).

[4] GBD MAPS Working Group, Burden of Disease Attributable to Major Air Pollution Sources in India (Health Effects Institute, 2018).

[5]Meghnath Dhimal,Francesco Chirico,et. al., “Impact of Air Pollution on Global Burden of Disease in 2019” 9(10)Processes1719(2021).

[6]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63.

[7] Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) (MoEFCC, 2019).

[8] Tanushree Ganguly, Kurinji L Selvaraj and Sarath K Guttikunda, “National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) for Indian Cities: Review and Outlook of Clean Air Action Plans” 8 Atmospheric Environment: X 100096(2020)

[9] Gautam K Sharma, Ankush Tewani and Prashant Gargava, “Comprehensive Analysis of Ambient Air Quality during Second Lockdown in National Capital Territory of Delhi” 6 Journal of Hazardous Materials Advances 100078(2022).

[10] Shibani Ghosh, Environmental Law in India45 (2nd edn, Routledge 2019)

[11] Central Pollution Control Board, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 2009 (CPCB Notification, 2009).

[12] CPCB, National Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP): Annual Report 2017–18 (CPCB, 2018).

[13]MoEFCC, National Air Quality Index (Press Information Bureau, 2015).

[14] CPCB, Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index (CEPI) (2009); EPCA, Graded Response Action Plan for Delhi and NCR (2016).

[15]A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu, (1999) 2 SCC 718.

[16]Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India, Original Application No. 21 of 2014, NGT (PB).

[17]MoEFCC, National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) (2019).

[18]Supra note 8 at 5

[19] Laura De Vito, Tim Chatterton,et. al., “Air Pollution in Delhi: A Review of Past and Current Policy Approaches” 24WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment 441(2018).

[20] Shibani Ghosh, Environmental Law in India (2nd edn, Routledge 2019) 203

[21]In re: News item published in “The Times of India” Authored by Shri Vishwa Mohan Titled “NCAP with Multiple Timelines to Clean Air in 102 Cities to be Released Around August 15”, O.A. No. 681/2018.

[22]Supra note 8 at 5

[23]Ibid

[24]Supra note 19 at 442

[25] Sunil Gulia, Nidhi Shukla, et. al., “Evolution of Air Pollution Management Policies and Related Research in India” 6 Environmental Challenges 100431(2022).

[26] Dr Jayashree Khandare and Dr Jaykumar Bhongale, “Air Pollution in Delhi-NCR through the Legal Lens” 46(2) Education and Society 714(2023).

[27]Supra note 9 at 6

[28]M.Z.M. Nomani and Rehana Parveen “COVID-19 Pandemic and Disaster Preparedness in the Context of Public Health Laws and Policies” 20(S) Bangladesh Journal of Medical SciencesS41-S48 (2021)

[29]Abul Amir Khan, Kalpana Garsa, et. al., “Demographic Evaluation and Parametric Assessment of Air Pollutants over Delhi NCR”, 14(9)Atmosphere1390 (2023).

[30]Supra note 8 at 5.

[31]Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.

[32]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1988) 1 SCC 471.

[33]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63

[34] Shibani Ghosh, Environmental Law in India (2nd edn, Routledge 2019) 112–118.

[35]Vardhaman Kaushik v. Union of India, O.A. No. 21 of 2014, NGT (PB).

[36]In re: Stubble Burning in Punjab, Haryana and UP, O.A. No. 681 of 2018, NGT (PB).

[37]Supra note 26 at 714.

[38] P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India321 (5th edn, LexisNexis 2019).

[39]M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1998) 6 SCC 63.

[40] Shibani Ghosh, Environmental Law in India (2nd edn, Routledge 2019) 115–120.

[41]Supra note 8 at 7

[42]Supra note 9 at 5.

[43]M.Z.M. Nomani and Rehana Parveen “Socioeconomic Disparities in Times of COVID-19 pandemic in India”15(5) Environmental Justice, 330-336 (2022)

[44]Supra note 42 at 335.

[45]Supra note 19 at 100431.

[46]In re: Stubble Burning in Punjab, Haryana and UP, O.A. No. 681 of 2018, NGT (PB).

[47]Supra note 19 at 441